A Modified AVI Model for Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping: Case Studies in Southern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript is actually framed on existing methods but some good information can be obtained from the results. However, the references need to be upgraded. current references on this subject abound. Authors should take advantage of this and make the better than its present state. Most sections of the manuscript cannot be understood because authors used winding and compound sentences that are not well punctuated. As seen in the highlighted pdf, authors made some claims that are not traceable to the results but mere speculations. I want to advise that these be adequately addressed before publication of this manuscript in MDPI.
Based on these I recommend major revision
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Manuscript is actually framed on existing methods but some good information can be obtained from the results.
However, the references need to be upgraded. current references on this subject abound.
The references have been upgraded with some recent papers.
Authors should take advantage of this and make the better than its present state. Most sections of the manuscript cannot be understood because authors used winding and compound sentences that are not well punctuated.
Some sentences have been rephrased, also following the indications given by the reviewer in the highlighted pdf.
As seen in the highlighted pdf, authors made some claims that are not traceable to the results but mere speculations. I want to advise that these be adequately addressed before publication of this manuscript in MDPI.
Based on these I recommend major revision
By the highlighted PDF
The title is clumsy. Poor punctuation beclouds the authors' intent.
The title has been changed.
Authors are from the same university and as such repealing the university shouldn't be.
The University has been specified only one time
write GIS in full at its place of first mention
Ok, written in full
The parametric PCSM model DRASTIC [11], is the most used worldwide to evaluate the intrinsic vulnerability of porous aquifers:
Please recast. This is unclear
Changed in “Among the latter, the DRASTIC model [11], is the most used worldwide to evaluate the intrinsic vulnerability of porous aquifers:”
Figure 1. Location of the study areas in Campania region (Italy).
Please give the legend and the source
Figure 1. Location of the study areas in Campania region (Italy). In light yellow the region (source: ISTAT: Italian Institute of Statistics) and in violet the study areas.
This map is not clear and besides, the source is not stated.
The map has been totally redrawn and made more clear, now is Fig_4_new. The map is original by the authors.
In the Garigliano River plain, the DRASTIC method (Fig. 5a) indicates a prevalence of the “moderate” vulnerability degree in the alluvial–marine and pyroclastic deposits; the map shows a “high degree” of vulnerability in correspondence of the sand dunes (for the high hydraulic conductivity and the low depth to water) and a “low degree” of vulnerability along the SE and the NW borders of the groundwater body, where the slope (Topography) and depth to water are high. The AVI method identifies only one degree of vulnerability, the “very high” one (Fig. 5b).
Idea here is not clear because the sentence is long and the meaning is beclouded.
Changed in:
In the Garigliano River plain, the DRASTIC method (Fig. 5a) indicates a prevalence of:
- "high degree" of vulnerability in correspondence of the sand dunes (for the high hydraulic conductivity and the low depth to water);
- "moderate" vulnerability degree in the alluvial-marine and pyroclastic deposits;
- "low degree" of vulnerability along the SE and the NW borders of the groundwater body, due to the high values of slope (Topography) and depth to water.
The AVI method identifies for the whole plain only the "very high" degree of vulnerability (Fig. 5b).
“high” vulnerability degree.
“very high”.
This is relative. Please sate it with relation to the low value
You are right, but the definition of the relative vulnerability degree is given by the authors of the methods, based on a classification of the numerical indexes
Figure 5
how did you come about the different map shapes? The writing on the maps are not clear.
The Figure 5 has been completely redrawn, also indicating the origin in the caption
The comparison between the maps drawn using DRASTIC and AVI methods is now more reliable.
Give reason for this claim/assertion
The sentence has been modified and the Fig. 9 has been added to better explain the concept.
Figure 8. Vulnerability….
the writing on the maps are not clear
The Figure 8 has been completely redrawn.
Conclusions
The study applied the AVI methods for groundwater pollution vulnerability in three different areas of southern Italy, comparing the resulting maps with those obtained by the DRASTIC method, considered as “standard method”. The comparison is proper, because AVI and DRASTIC are both suitable for porous aquifers. The limitation of the AVI method, revealed in previous studies [19,21] and confirmed by this study, consists in a low differentiations of areas at different degrees of vulnerability, especially in alluvial aquifers, and in a prevalence of the highest class of vulnerability.
Moreover, previous studies [21,24] indicated that DRASTIC provides more precise results for detailed studies, while AVI is useful in relatively large basins and for quick reference purposes, not considering morphological and climatological factors as slope, soil and recharge, neither directly nor indirectly.
Your sentences are winding and long. This denies the readers the opportunity to understand your intent
This part has been rewritten.
Among many methods, the AVI method appears to be a valuable method to be applied worldwide,
With the difficulty and invalidity encountered in the estimation of hydraulic conductivity, a major too in AVI analysis, do think this statement is worthwhile and can be generalized?
Notwithstanding the difficulty and invalidity encountered in the estimation of hydraulic conductivity, the AVI method appears, among many methods, to be a valuable method to be applied worldwide, because the method is based on only two parameters, whose determination is objective and therefore comparable even on different areas
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper need major and substantial revision:
1- Abstract is only one paragraph!!!
2- How it is possible 1 sentences and 1 line can be 1 paragraph!! first line if the introduction. Also it is repeated too many times. 1 paragraph should be at least 10 line!!! not 1 or 2 line!!! Paper must be revised carefully!!!
3-What is the research gap, what is your paper novelty and ... descripe in the paper carefully.
4- Why AVI method applied, among other well-know methods?
5- Write more about the models evaluation section!!
6- Figures have to be enlarged and presented in a high resolution, especially legends
7- method and discussion sections are weak and more discussion is required
8- What a strange order in the references list!!!!!
Author Response
Reviewer 2
This paper need major and substantial revision:
1- Abstract is only one paragraph!!!
We do not have changed the structure of the abstract because in the instructions for authors Water recommends:
“The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph”
And the abstract in this paper is one paragraph of 217 words, more than allowed.
2- How it is possible 1 sentences and 1 line can be 1 paragraph!! first line if the introduction. Also it is repeated too many times. 1 paragraph should be at least 10 line!!! not 1 or 2 line!!! Paper must be revised carefully!!!
Dear reviewer we do not understand your observation: in a lot of papers and books, paragraphs are of 1 or 2 lines! For example, this is a paragraph of the Introduction of the book Groundwater (1979) by Freeze and Cherry: Groundwater plays a role in the concentration of certain economic mineral deposits, and in the migration and accumulation of petroleum.
3-What is the research gap, what is your paper novelty and ... describe in the paper carefully.
This part has been added in the conclusions.
4- Why AVI method applied, among other well-know methods?
The AVI method appears, among many methods, to be more objective, because it is based on only two ,measurable, parameters.
5- Write more about the models evaluation section!!
To clarify this aspect Fig. 9 has been added and explained in the text.
6- Figures have to be enlarged and presented in a high resolution, especially legends
Figures 4, 5 and 8 have been completely redrawn, with the aim to make them more readable.
7- method and discussion sections are weak and more discussion is required
These sections have been partially rewritten and deepened.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have substantially responded to my comments. However, before publication, a native English speaker should assist is righting the wrongs in grammar for effective conveyance of the authors' intent. In line 269, a figure does not carry caption. initial caption has been cancelled. This should be addressed before acceptance.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The authors have substantially responded to my comments. However, before publication, a native English speaker should assist is righting the wrongs in grammar for effective conveyance of the authors' intent.
The paper has been checked by a native English speaker.
In line 269, a figure does not carry caption. initial caption has been cancelled.
The caption has been re-inserted, now is the line 230.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor
Some of my comments has not been addressed. For example, In introduction, there are many sentences that are also a paragraph!!! one or two sentences one paragraph!!!! It shows authors are not so professional in paper writing.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Some of my comments has not been addressed. For example, In introduction, there are many sentences that are also a paragraph!!! one or two sentences one paragraph!!!!
We apologize for that. In the Introduction some sentences have been merged in the same paragraph.
